Drug raid warrant questioned

By Jeremiah Tucker/Sauk Prairie Eagle

A group of young adults cited as the result of a drug raid at a Sauk City home in January are questioning the investigation methods and evidence used to obtain the search warrant.

The municipal court case stems from the execution of a search warrant Jan. 26 as part of a drug investigation at 303 Pine St. in Sauk City by the Sauk Prairie Police Department and the Sauk County Emergency Response Tactical Team.

Following a brief hearing April 16, Judge Dwight Pulsfus continued the proceedings pending a possible challenge to the search warrant in Sauk County Circuit Court.

"I'm not denying what happened at all, it was more the matter of the way the search was conducted and the warrant," Ross Ott, 20, said in Sauk Prairie Municipal Court Wendesday, April 16.

Ott was in court for one citation of underage drinking and his friend Nathen Steinhorst, 21, was in court for five citations of permitting underage drinking.

A few days after the court hearing, Steinhorst said one of the reasons he and Ott objected to the warrant was the fact that Sauk Prairie Detective Roland Froese, who obtained the search warrant, lived across the street from the duplex Steinhorst rented with three friends.

"Does he do that to everyone who moves into the neighborhood?" Steinhorst said. "Isn't that sort of profiling, picking out kids you don't like?"

Sauk Prairie Police Chief Jerry Strunz disagreed.

"This is a small town and police officers are often involved investigating people they know all the time," he said. "This isn't Los Angeles."

Strunz said he would not comment on investigative techniques used by police.

In the affidavit filed for the search warrant, Froese said he observed the new tenants move in during mid-November and called the Sauk City Utilities department to confirm the names of the tenants.

Beginning in December, according to Froese's affidavit, he began collecting the trash from Steinhorst's residence after noticing "more than the normal amount of guests coming and going from the residence, all hours of the night" and sifting through it at the police station.

According to the affidavit, Froese said he found a broken pipe with burned marijuana residue, plastic bags rolled in a manner "similar to that of dealers and users of marijuana" and roots, stems and plant material that he said tested positive for THC, the drug found in marijuana.

Steinhorst said he thinks Froese was annoyed that young adults who had friends over all the time moved in next door and decided to persecute them.

When asked about the evidence Froese listed in the affidavit, Steinhorst said, "Did they see who put out the trash?"

Froese did not respond to messages left on his voicemail and an e-mail requesting comments related to this article.

He said he never threw out a marijuana plant and he doesn't know what "leafy materials" means. He said he and Ott tried to obtain an inventory report from the police department listing the evidence collected from Froese's trash collection, but have been unsuccessful.

In the affidavit, Froese said he expected to find marijuana plants, grow lights, fertilizer and items to package marijuana at the Sauk City rental property.

During the execution of the warrant, police reported recovering trace amounts of illegal drugs. Steinhorst's roommates, Hector Gonzalez, 18, and Daniel Walsh, 19, were charged with possession of drug paraphernalia.

Steinhorst said that some of his friends were over and some of Walsh's friends were over. He said there was underage drinking and that some people had marijuana for personal use, but the house wasn't a major drug operation.

Detective Roland Froese testified during the court hearing that he obtained the search warrant but was not involved in executing it.

Ott asked what crime had been committed that would have allowed a warrant to be approved.

"Evidence collected to substantiate the possibility of drug activity," Froese said.

Ott asked him for specifics about the evidence collected and prosecuting attorney Erin Brennan objected, saying the question was irrelevant.

"I do agree we're not here to challenge the warrant." Pulsfus said.

Ott again raised the question of the warrant when he was allowed to testify on his own behalf.

"I know it was not a no-knock warrant." Ott said.

Brennan again emphasized the hearing was not about the search warrant.

"There's a procedure if one challenges the search warrant," Brennan said. "It doesn't take place in municipal court, it takes place in circuit court."

When Ott asked when and how it should be done, Brennan said, "Your honor, it's too late to do anything. We're way beyond the time period.

"It's not my — it's not our job to inform these people the law. If they want to know what the law is, they hire an attorney and learn the law."

Pulsfus asked her if she knew what the time period for challenging a warrant is, and she said she didn't. The judge said he didn't know either.

Pulsfus said the issue is what the appropriate time frame for challenging a warrant is and court was momentarily adjourned while a call was placed to Sauk County Circuit Court.

When court resumed a few minutes later, Pulsfus said, "I understand a call was placed to Sauk County Courthouse concerning the length of time for objecting to a search warrant and the answer that was received was that as long as the case is still in process, the search warrant can be challenged."

Pulsfus said the case would resume on May 21, but added that the time period can be extended.

"This matter will be held open until the mater of the the search warrant can be determined by the circuit court," Pulsfus said.